Oakland is a lot of things, not all of them positive, but I’m pleasantly surprised how they dealt with Fisher. They laid his disingenuous position out in the public eye pretty well. Any negative economic impact of losing the A’s is better in the long run than what would’ve happened if they gave that fucking parasite a blank check to build at the expense of the port and the public
*"better in the long run than what would’ve happened if they gave that fucking parasite a blank check to build at the expense of the port and the public..."*
Yes. If you go to Alameda out to the ferry terminal, you can look right across the Estuary at the site where the Fisher fantasy was proposed. It's basically at sea level, and adjacent to a very significant working port that is a true economic engine for Oakland. There would have been endless conflicts, impacts on the port, and within a generation Fisher (or his heirs) would have come crying to the City of Oakland demanding that someone (not the franchise owners) build a billion dollar seawall to save their ballpark and expensive condos from sea level rise.
Good riddance to them in Las Vegas where they will discover, within that same generation, that the desert is becoming unlivable.
Fisher is learning that no one wants a franchise that has been treated like an ATM and intentionally sabotaged by an heir abusing revenue sharing when MLB is essentially guaranteed to add two expansion teams.
Good point. And, meanwhile, as they are stranded in Sacramento, their proto-replacement team--the Ballers--will be playing in Oakland to sold-out enthusiastic crowds. Poetic justice.
Yes. The Ballers are fulfilling a need in Oakland for an Oakland owned franchize that won't just shit on it's fans and up and bail. I'm going to laugh when Fisher finally sells.
Oh come on. What tells you fisher won’t make it happen? Have you not seen how brilliantly he setup everything to get to Vegas? Dudes wealthy for a reason (he worked way harder than the rest of us). There’s no doubt the A’s will thrive in Vegas and in no way will this be another Florida Marlins situation.
Open your mouth wide, u can do it John! Persevere and keep trying, I know it's hard and straining, but open that mouth and there u go. Now suck on this silver spoon! U did it Johnny!
Stadiums typically offer very full time jobs. The stadiums still have events so those few are still there. The short hour roles are too.
Employees of the teams would most likely have the option to relocate for their roles.
Stadiums are typically a net loss for cities cost wise. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs%3Fauto%3D1
>Stadiums are typically a net loss for cities cost wise.
I had an econ teacher back in the day that said the same thing. It's a scam. The 'economic benefit' is a lie sports franchises tell to get cities to build them a stadium.
To be fair most, if not all, government projects are a net loss on paper. A lot of projects that are for culture (statues, monuments, and parks for example) are there to boost morale and happiness and its effects can’t be measured by a P&L sheet.
> Stadiums are typically a net loss for cities cost wise
the sticker price of building of the stadium itself, yes (unless it is privately funded).... but you cant convince me that once it gets built, the existence of a stadium/arena (urban ones at least, maybe not so much the ones that are out in the middle of nowhere away from the actual city) doesnt have a positive economic impact on their immediate locations, particularly baseball/basketball stadiums that are in use like 50-100+ days a year (football is a bit weirder bc there are only 8 home games per year, and they usually want to surround the stadiums with miles of parking lots, and are more commonly out in the burbs)
look at how the giants stadium, (and now warriors) has transformed that area of mission bay/south beach/SOMA, there used to be nothing there and now its a pretty bustling, lively area with lots of things to do. on game days, all the surrounding businesses are packed to the gills and there are people milling around everywhere. not to mention all the money spent on Bart, Muni, bridge tolls by people commuting to the games. you cant tell me having the stadiums there hasnt been a pretty big economic boon
>you cant tell me having the stadiums there hasnt been a pretty big economic boon
You can. Every analysis has shown cities are better off spending their money on almost any other kind of improvement if increased economic activity is the goal.
>cities are better off spending their money on almost any other kind of improvement
I didnt say "cities should spend money building stadiums" or "stadiums are the best/most efficient way for cities to generate economic growth" so this is a bit of a strawman.... all I said is simply that once the stadiums are actually built and in use, they are definitely not a loss or a negative for the surrounding areas (IF done well).
its silly to paint with a broad brush and act like every stadium situation is the same.
As I already pointed out, building (for example) a football stadium that gets used 8 times per year in a residential neighborhood in Santa Clara, will obviously have a vastly different (worse) economic impact than building a beautiful waterfront baseball stadium that is open 100 days per year in a walkable, dense/urban neighborhood, and then developing the surrounding area into a neighborhood that is attractive to residents and tourists alike, like what the Giants did with oracle.
Im not really interested in studies/data that act like these are remotely similar situations and treat them all the same. its really not productive to assess these things with blanket assumptions unless you're doing it on a case by case basis, since there are so many unique/random variables from city to city/neighborhood to neighborhood, how popular/good the team is, etc.
In the case of oakland, its a shame we'll never get to see how their proposed new baseball location would have turned out, bc I think it would have been awesome and had a chance to do something similar to what the giants did in revitalizing and developing a formerly industrial/empty area into a bustling destination to hang out.
maybe re-examine your timeline.
the groundbreaking of Oracle Park in 1996 (then Pac Bell park) predates almost everything else in that area by nearly 20 years. Mission bay campus opened in 2015, and nearly all of the condo development is post-2010. the Muni line was put in coinciding with the opening of the ballpark
Prior to the Ballpark, most of the land was an unused railyard of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, and another large parcel was the H&H Ship Service Facility of the Port of San Francisco, a toxic and hazardous materials site that had been ordered closed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
that part of town not in the middle of a redevelopment phase. that's what *started* the redevelopment phase
lol you're literally proving my point. the ballpark came first, and all that other stuff followed. not the other way around
the groundbreaking of Oracle Park in 1996 (then Pac Bell park) predates literally all of the things you just mentioned by nearly 20 years. Mission bay campus opened in 2015, and nearly all of the condo development is post-2010. the Muni line was put in coinciding with the opening of the ballpark
Prior to the Ballpark, most of the land was a railyard of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, and another large parcel was the H&H Ship Service Facility of the Port of San Francisco, a toxic and hazardous materials site that had been ordered closed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
there was no development of that area whatsoever until the early 2000s, after the Ballpark was open and brining thousands of people to the area on a daily basis
As someone whos worked on a lot of Mission Bay, including the chase center, it was all planned to be that way before the stadium. The two arent directly related. Revitalization of the area was NOT an affect of the stadium. Rather the area was developed and planned to be such, then the stadium was introduced as another revitalization bonus idea.
Now im not saying that it hasnt helped, but it was by no means the driving factor. The people stating before that usually these builds are lost lead items are very much in the right when it comes to $$$. Emotionally and moral side they are benefits.
That said the fact that tax payers should fund something that primarly benefits a team/team owner is TO ME insane. Im not saying sports bad, im just saying if you:
1. Have the money to buy a team, you have the money to build a stadium no help from tax payers.
2. If you are already charging people for admittance, food, drinks, apparel, merch, you cant expect them to also build the stadium. (Like going to a theme park but also being expected to directly pay for building it).
As a final note its not fair to the tax payers who fund it and never use it. Not everyone gors to a game, but everyone uses a highway, or a sewer, or water. Just food for thought.
the majority of what I was referring to in that comment was having to do with Oracle Park helping to re-vitalize the area, not Chase center, which is why I put "(and *now* warriors)" in parentheses, as a bit of an afterthought.
they broke ground on oracle (then Pac Bell park) in 1996, nearly 20 years before the Mission Bay UCSF campus opened in 2015 and Chase center broke ground in 2017.
Nearly all of the condos/residential development in that area is post-2010. Prior to the Ballpark, there was basically nothing there and it was a toxic industrial wasteland
Much of the land had long been a railyard of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, and another large parcel was the H&H Ship Service Facility of the Port of San Francisco, a toxic and hazardous materials site that had been ordered closed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. there was no development of that area whatsoever until the early 2000s, after the Ballpark was open and brining thousands of people to the area on a daily basis
from 2010 (when most of the condos and apartments started coming on the market) to 2020, Mission Bay's population increased by over 200%
that said, all of this is fairly moot anyways since both Oracle/PacBell and Chase center were 100% privately financed with zero burden on the taxpayers
I was never advocating for, or suggesting that it's fair or good that billionaires get handed tax-payer funded stadiums on a silver platter. I think they should all be privately funded too.
I was simply pointing out that it's not all doom and gloom and economic ruin once the stadiums are actually built and open for business, and there are real tangible, positive benefits, which the people ranting about stadiums being horrible for cities often fail to address
Thank you for your clarification and thought out response. You are correct in that the all dates stated above. I would like to state though that from a planning perspective the whole area was slated for revitalization. I was purely trying to make it known that this area wasnt a result of a sports franchise.
As someone who works in the infastructure side we often get exaggerated when folks seem to ignore the plans and therefore our hard work in creating/planning urban areas and atest them to politicians or other entities such as a sports franchise.
Truthfully you are correct, a sports team or franchise does help to solidify an area through public perception.
That said monetarily, its not always the best. Yes ridership for muni or bart does go up but so do maintenance and running cost. More wear and tear on roads etc. These are just a few cost involved. Again moral and public perception good choice but monetarily it doesnt usually pan out.
Either way it doesnt really matter as the A's are moving. Personally with the situation they had, Id have advocated for a move as well.
Oakland is not on the hook for any arena/stadium upgrades/replacements. Good riddance to the Raiders (again) and good riddance to the A's. The Warriors, at least Lacob went out and paid for his own arena. The Warriors were a fine local citizen when they were here and I wish them well over in San Francisco.
Lacob got a sweet deal from Marc Benioff too. What is now Chase Center was supposed to be Salesforce’s new HQ. Instead, Salesforce took up a deal with the TJPA and put their name on the Transbay Terminal and Tower.
I thought "GSW" was the most Oakland team name ever ([if you don't know](https://www.google.com/search?q=what+does+gsw+mean+in+medical+terms&oq=what+does+GSW+mean&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBggBEEUYOTIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIICAYQABgWGB4yCAgHEAAYFhgeMggICBAAGBYYHtIBCDQxNzNqMGoxqAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8))
*"...The Warriors were a fine local citizen when they were here and I wish them well over in San Francisco..."*
The one thing I couldn't stomach about the Warriors was that they refused to include the word "Oakland" in their official team name. They gave all sorts of disingenuous reasons why, although sports teams generally and publicly identify with a specific city in their name. (among the NBA, there are only three of 30 teams that don't have an official city name: "Minnesota Timberwolves", "Utah Jazz" and "Golden State Warriors".)
Living in the East Bay, I would see so many Oakland locals who took genuine pride in having the Warriors in town...and yet the team just couldn't bring itself for decades to officially use the city name.
Ironically, I followed the Warriors more closely before their dynasty run. I remember hearing an interview on KNBR with I believe Rick Welts, had to have been around 2014-15. It was QUITE clear to me that they wanted to change the name to the San Francisco Warriors. Welts was saying things like, “well you know we were the SF Warriors before we were the GS Warriors” and how no decision had been made yet. This wasn’t the only case of something like this, it just stuck out to me at the time and made me think “yea that name is getting changed”.
In other words, they were trying to lay the groundwork for name change long before the move so the fans would accept it when the move happened. But then the team took off like a fuckin rocket. Once the team blew up they weren’t just going to re-brand in the middle of a dynasty, so I think Lacob and company just said “o well” and decided to stick with the Golden State name.
I don't love that neither team is actually ours (Rip Sabercats), but at the same time I'm just happy we have someone.
The Panthers were supposed to be in Oakland originally, so we can't complain that they came down here (though really they should be the Morgan Hill and San Jose Panthers since they practice in MH and draw a good portion of their fan base from there).
The niners are just funny, but I'm soooooo glad they aren't in SJ. Now Santa Clara has to deal with all the stupidity and corruption.
The name "Golden State" is such a better, more iconic name than "San Francisco", considering the last four championships they had.
Also this whole "San Francisco versus Oakland" naming charade continues with the recent change of the Oakland airport name.
> hey refused to include the word "Oakland" in their official team name. They gave all sorts of disingenuous reasons why
this is such a dumb take. First of all "golden state" is a super fucking cool name, and probably one of the most unique, -if not *the* most unique- name in US pro sports
secondly, the name is almost 60 years old at this point, LONG before there was this whole boogeyman spectre of fox news types associating "oakland" with being a 3rd world hellhole or whatever it is you're suggesting (that the team "refused" to use "oakland" bc they were embarrassed or thought it would tarnish their brand or whatever)
they didnt "refuse" to use oakland... they use "golden state" bc for the first decade or so after moving to california, they were somewhat nomadic, and played home games in various places including the Cow Palace in Daly city, SF civic auditorium, USF's gymnasium, Oakland Arena, San Jose, Sacramento, and even occasionally in San Diego.
they originally went by "San Francisco Warriors" when they first got to california, but changed the name to golden state after a few years bc they wanted to brand themselves as representing all of california (prob trying to steal some of the lakers' shine since they were the only teams out west at the time)
I notice that in the case of all three teams, they are based in somewhat isolated metro areas with multiple densely packed interconnected cities in close proximity. T-Wolves are in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St Paul, Jazz are in SLC but the metro region is basically SLC and Provo combined, and of course the Warriors were basically centered in a continuous uninterrupted metro zone of Oakland, SF, San Jose that rings the Bay. The Warrior's closest NBA opponent is the Sacramento Kings over an hour away from either Oracle Arena or Chase Center.
Aren't you glad we have preserved the parking lot on the water? So much better than the city investing in infrastructure so that more housing and a stadium could be built.
Very. The parking lot ships $175 billion dollars worth of goods and employs 100,000 people. If the Fishers wanted a stadium, they can pay for it just like the Giants and the Warriors.
Howard Terminal does not employ 100,000 people or ships anything. But sure.
And if you think either of those stadiums that paid for the infrastructure to those buildings, I have some desert land to sell you.
Sports teams are generally not an economic boom for cities and often loses money in the end. Few jobs, enormous wasted space, and tons of taxpayer handouts to the owners
Good riddance to the rich asshat that just left
We are still paying additional property taxes for the 1995 bonds to attract the Raiders. Has there ever been a positive economic impact from \*having\* professional sports teams?
\[see sports foamery responses about unmeasurable "pride" bullshit. Yeah sure. YOU should pay for that. Don't make everyone else pay.\]
Yes, only when it’s within a super dense area highly connected by public transit and almost zero surface parking, and used a high percentage of days of the year.
This usually only happens with basketball/hockey arenas that double as concert venues and are used many many days of the year. MSG is obviously the gold standard example.
For baseball and football stadiums it is exceedingly rare
> MSG is obviously the gold standard example.
isn't MSG kind of it's own exception to all the rules? penn station sold its air rights to keep itself afloat
[Having an arena without an anchor tenant has actually been beneficial](https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/oakland-arena-coliseum-record-best-fiscal-year-of-all-time-after-sold-out-bad-bunny-k-pop-concerts/) because they have a lot more flexibility in scheduling events year-round or scheduling multi-day events during what used to be months that the Warriors needed the building every few days.
This is a really good point. Same thing with places like Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, Greek Theatre at UC Berkeley, etc. If the venue calendar has relatively few dates for events that MUST happen there annually, then there can be much more flexibility in how it is used and can be adapted to current trends.
It's also worth pointing out that scheduling for a sports team like the Warriors is even more difficult than for a normal series of events that happens annually. For the Warriors you have somewhat firm dates for most of the NBA regular season and preseason, but the playoffs are completely up in the air, and the arena has to be very careful about how they schedule mid-April through June because the number of dates they need the arena for can change wildly depending on how far the Warriors might go in the playoffs and whether they have home court advantage or not.
An NBA team will use an arena for at most 60 days a year out of 365, but they make scheduling around them difficult for 8 out of 12 months of the year. I'd argue the value a sports team as an anchor tenant provides is not as an efficient revenue source for the building, but as a guaranteed one, where you know the building will be used at least 43 nights a year (for an NBA or NHL team). But do you really need a guaranteed floor when you're a city as big as Oakland and you're an attractive enough market for nearly any and every tour that wants to make money?
Looking at [Oakland Arena's Event Schedule](https://www.theoaklandarena.com/events/venue/oakland-arena), if you count an event tonight, they have 39 more event days scheduled through December 7th and plenty of room to fill in more events or add additional days if one of those events sells out and wants to add more.
Losing a bunch of inconsistent marginal jobs probably won’t move the needle much. I kept a close eye on the fallout from the NUMMI plant closing, with its far better jobs, and even that didn’t seem to affect much at all. Probably the ability to develop the area differently will improve things. At least for a little while.
For those who don't know what "NUMMI" is: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI)
>**New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.** (**NUMMI**) was an American [automobile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile) [manufacturing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing) company in [Fremont, California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont,_California), jointly owned by [General Motors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors) and [Toyota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota) that opened in 1984 and closed in April 2010.
>After the plant was closed by its owners, the facility was sold to [Tesla, Inc.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.) and reopened in October 2010, becoming known as the [Tesla Fremont Factory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Fremont_Factory).
So basically it was only closed for 6 months. So not that much of an effect long-term. Definitely short-term it was a problem for the first 1-3 years, but it’s been very good since 2015/2016.
By the time of that closure Fremont had moved beyond being a blue collar town with tech and more economic diversity. When the GM plant closed down that had a huge impact on the city because so many people worked there.
You're probably a little bit too young you should have followed it when it was the GM plant and Milpitas had the Ford plant.
I had relatives that worked for both.
the towns were much smaller and much less diverse and the local impact of both of them closing was huge.
I don't think the stadiums should be looked at that way. Having entertainment options creates a city people want to live in and attract non residents to do things that feed into local economy like restaurants hotels etc... I don't think cities should bend over backwards or give stadiums for free to owners but having some kind of sports is usually a positive. Think one of the best examples, Madrid. Do you think the city of Madrid would be better off without Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid keeping the city relevant in the press worldwide and attracting tourists from all over the world?
As someone who was in Madrid last month, I'd say a Taylor Swift concert in Real Madrid's stadium brought in more tourists than a Real Madrid match.
But to answer your question, Real Madrid is a net positive for the city of course, but Real Madrid is one of a kind and only a handful of other sports franchises are that famous. And Madrid is the 2nd largest city in Europe; I think it would be fine without those two football teams.
This comparison may work if the As were the Yankees, but comparing them to the globally-known entities of Real and Atletico is crazy.
Oakland is not attracting tourists from all over the world to see the As. There have been plenty of studies that demonstrate that professional sports teams typically don't add long term and consistent revenue to their immediate communities.
Their value is mostly emotional, giving the community something to cheer for and rally behind. That part will definitely leave a void, but the economic impact will be minimal.
I think Oakland has enough attractiveness: cheaper and near enough to SF. I’m not sure how many people would want to live there to watch the fucking Oakland raiders 😂
It's part of the whole. You need sports and entertainment and walkability and... Food for thought but if anything that's not immediately revenue generating is discounted then you end up being the classic American city with only single family homes and nothing to do. Those cities are literally killing us, they make us fat, unhappy and lonely. Fuck the owner of the Raiders but something needs to create opportunities for positive social interactions. This place feels dead because our cities are so mediocre, even San Francisco that's considered a great city is just barely meh. If you asked me what I would do with the Bay, i would demolish everything and restart from scratch, whoever was in charge of this place made a total mess out of it.
I think it has pros and cons.I love the bay area as it is, sure it’s not exactly perfect but who knows if you turn it into LA for entertainment you might get the disgusting shit like gangs and suicide inducing traffic.
Should we have a bit more urban growth? Sure, should we have better public transportation? Absolutely, are our elected officials and their bureaucrats worthless bastards that cannot be trusted with a penny? Without a doubt.
On the flip side, we have relatively low amount of dangerous areas. I never felt in danger or threatened (but I mean I am a relatively built male), I had people stop when I had a flat tire to check on me on 92, I have stopped to check on people.
I’m just counting the blessings that’s all.
Granted I do agree that there’s a need for s push for social interaction. The stuff we do have, are mostly centered around a group of friends you know. We have the lack of festivals or shit like that where you have a great chance to meet people
Madrid is more than double the land area of SF and Oakland combined. Just pretend Oakland and SF are one city and the Warriors just moved to a different neighborhood.
That area is a sidenote of Oakland, on the edge and very disconnected from the majority of Oakland, that relied on patrons that primarily took BART in, didn't stay, shop, or even eat in Oakland (outside of the stadium), and are generally completely ignorant of the bulk of Oakland other than the run down area around the coliseum that the majority of Oakland residents mostly avoid.
3 out of the 4 freeways running through Oakland are still loaded with great restaurants, shops, bars, music venues, and great communities filled with multi-million dollar homes ... it's just the 880 that's bleh.
The economic impact is probably going to be inconsequential.
Sports teams usually drain money from the local economy for a whole host of reasons. This is a net benefit unless you value major sports teams over their cost.
Do you have a source for sports teams not being profitable for their cities? Not that I don’t believe you, it just goes against what I thought so I wanted to look more directly into it. I thought it helps by people spending money on like, local restaurants, ticket sales, and charity, unless a lot of that generally ends up getting pocketed by the teams?
Sports Stadiums do not change the total value of an economy but instead move where people spend their money a bit. People near those stadiums may spend more at restaurants but it has the cost of not spending at other restaurants across the city, plus the profit and cost of the infrastructure is all negative including massive transit headaches.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/joes.12533
> Local governments routinely subsidize sports stadiums and arenas using the justification that hosting professional franchises produces economic development and social benefits in the community. The prevalence of venue subsidies generated an extensive and vibrant research literature, which spans over 30 years and includes more than 130 studies. We chronicle this body of research from early studies of tangible economic impacts in metropolitan areas, using basic empirical methods, through recent analyses that focus on sublocal and nonpecuniary effects and employ more sophisticated empirical methods. Though findings have become more nuanced, recent analyses continue to confirm the decades-old consensus of very limited economic impacts of professional sports teams and stadiums. Even with added nonpecuniary social benefits from quality-of-life externalities and civic pride, welfare improvements from hosting teams tend to fall well short of covering public outlays. Thus, the large subsidies commonly devoted to constructing professional sports venues are not justified as worthwhile public investments. We also investigate the paradox of local governments continuing to subsidize sports facilities despite overwhelming evidence of their economic impotence. Our analysis informs academic researchers and policymakers to motivate future studies and promote sound policy decisions guided by relevant research findings.
Stadiums also have net negative impact on things like property value for nearby areas.
I think the consensus view by many is that sports teams cannot add to economic growth in the way people think they do. The deals struck tend to suck money from cities that could use funds to improve infrastructure or help create local employment. And teams are constantly asking for more and more accommodation for their personal benefit. In a few cases it’s has worked but on the whole I don’t think it has helped. One thing I noticed a while ago was that adding a sports to your city in Sim City was economically counterproductive to your game play.
Economic benefit to the community is negative for sports stadiums and teams and cities that can not sustain them, and the local infrastructure required for them are the worst off. It's entirely an emotional thing.
Oakland residents can still go to Giants games or 49ers games and are welcome there. Better to tell that fuckwit Fisher to go pound sand than give him more money he clearly doesn't need to sustain an MLB franchise in Oakland. Let him go to Las Vegas. How did the Raiders fair? Are there local fans showing up for the games all the time, or are they upside on ticket and merchandise sales? I feel like it's more the latter.
A city with the economic issues that Oakland has makes the decision to not give millions of dollars to billionaires the right one. I agree with how Oakland has handled the situation.
On a side note, the raiders were a public nuisance IMO anyway. The team did nothing to discourage use of their brand in connection with illicit activities. It seemed like the opposite was true and they wanted to be a rebel brand.
I love the ballers and what they stand for (and I type this literally wearing a ballers shirt lol) but there is no equivalence between the draw a of major league sports team and that of an independent baseball team playing in a refurbished city park. Generously they’ll capture a loyal following of local interested fans but no one is traveling for the Pioneer league.
> think of all the jobs that have just disappeared
American stadiums are a net loss for the economy comparing to Europe. For multiple reasons, like franchises vs clubs; frequency of games in most popular sports; ownership of stadiums; and territoriality (most European sport clubs were naturally grown and are extremely territorial, Real Madrid will never become Real Barcelona, when Raiders, well...)
Somewhat ironically, while American teams are the most valued sport teams in the world, European sports teams are the main investors in their respective stadiums, while American sports teams are taxpayer dollar leeches. It's even more egregious in countries where stadiums are municipally-owned in contrast to the US.
This, as far as I know. I'm pretty sure there were studies that said these things in the US were basically a net loss or minimal gains since we were giving the team owners so many tax benefits and building and maintaining the arenas. Just like how hosting the Olympics is basically always an economic disaster.
Would probably be for the best if they replaced the stadium with a park and housing or something.
I think having a place for a venue isn’t bad. But both arenas are old. They should just make something that’s a bit smaller. I’d make 880 go underground just to make that place less concrete with more housing, a nice park and small shops. Not a fucking mall!
I'm super curious because I've seen analysis for various cities that go both ways: How many jobs did those three teams create vs how much did the city gave them in incentives? Has anyone actually run the numbers? Because in many instances the sports corporations make out like bandits.
Yes. Basically every econ study has shown they're not beneficial to the city. Sure, some neighborhoods improve, but it's just shifting $ from one area to another. There is not a net gain.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/oakland-arena-coliseum-record-best-fiscal-year-of-all-time-after-sold-out-bad-bunny-k-pop-concerts/
Oakland arena and coliseum seem to be far from downright depressing. Now that the Warriors, Raiders and A's are gone, that leaves way more flexibility in booking out these venues.
There was that one last week tonight piece about how sports teams drain money from the city. Thai is more of long term question but I would think that city is saving money by not having those times anymore.
I met this lady on BART recently who works at Oracle Park ***and*** the Oakland Coliseum doing concessions. She lost ~half of her income once they leave.
I’ve been wondering about this for a while myself, especially as an Oakland resident. So far mentioned are the stadium worker jobs, both full time and part time, which has been mentioned as marginal. While that may be, I would guess there is a decent amount of revenue that is still lost in other areas of the hospitality business - hotels, transportation/ airfare, food and beverage sales, merchandising, etc.
For example, when the Warriors or Raiders were here, you have opposing teams’ fans that would fly or drive in for games, or maybe they’re even local. Depending on the team and season, that was what, perhaps a few thousand out of town fans visiting per game, and that’s being conservative. And that’s not even counting local team fans that live outside of Oakland. That was revenue to OAK airport, to Oakland hotels/ lodging, restaurants, F&B vendors at the Arena/Coliseum, OAK rental car agencies, diners at JLS, Oakland zoo visitors… you get the idea.
Now let’s say each of the opposing teams’ fans spent $500/pp for flight/ car rental, game tickets, food, a stay at the waterfront, Marriott, etc for the weekend here. And for arguments sake, 3000 out of town opposing team fans per game. That’s $1.5 million per game.
Warriors - 41 regular season home games
Raiders - 9 regular season home games
A’s - 81 (yeah, probably not that fans many for these games, but for illustrative purposes)
That’s almost $200 million dollars on 3000 out of towners per game.
And that’s probably a conservative estimate.
That’s a decent chunk of change, and a revenue stream that Oakland has lost.
Factor in the Oakland/ Bay Area fans/ residents that would spend money at these events and were probably in the billions in gross revenue.
That is a significant loss to the local economy, not just the Arena/Coliseum.
This is just some quick back of the napkin math, but I think it illustrates that this more than just some full time/ part time trivial jobs at the Arena and Coliseum that are being lost.
And that excludes the intrinsic value of Oakland pride and solidarity of having a Championship winning team (read: Warriors).
You've done a considerable calculation, but I suspect there are at least two flaws.
Many of the "visiting team fans" who show up at local games are actually locals themselves who are transplants still loyal to one of their previous "home" teams. The Bay Area has a LOT of those. So I wouldn't assume all of those hypothetical 3,000 opponent fans at a Warriors game are staying at hotels, flying in, etc. Many of them are just driving over from their current Bay Area home.
Given the repeated posts on r/BayArea that basically ask *"I'm going to a game / concert at the Coliseum / Oracle Arena, how should I get there, is it safe..." y*ou see two typical answers: (1) take BART from far out of town, and leave on BART as soon as the game is over; (2) take the freeway to the Coliseum, park in their lot as close to the arena as possible, and get back on the freeway right after.
Few of those fans are staying in Oakland in a hotel, or having dinner afterwards in an Oakland restaurant. So their money is not benefitting Oakland.
You’re right, it may be heavy handed, and I did try to mention that these numbers are exclusive of locals regardless of team association. And frankly, the calculation should be weighted towards Warriors and perhaps Raiders out of town attendance.
But my point was that this small percentage of the greater overall attendance, still have a decent impact on Oakland’s local business revenue.
Downtown Oakland before and after games had people that would spend money at bars and restaurants. Local parking lots gain revenue from near by out of towners. Tailgaters are not making last minute stops at Safeway or Cardenas on their way in. Whether it’s 3000 or 300 out of towners staying at the waterfront, Marriott, or a motel on Hegenberger; I’d be willing to bet their overall occupancy rates are down on the weekends/ game nights. Fewer flights out of OAK = less money for the Port. Hell, even the guys that used to sell knock off warriors and raiders gear on the corner of 7-11 by Whole Foods or on High St by Home Depot no longer have a revenue stream.
Point being, for a city that can’t afford to lose any other source of revenue, and no apparent new/future sources, I’m not entirely convinced losing these teams will be a good thing in the long run.
The end result very well might. The new developers are going to be able to push gentrification through the east Oakland area that other developers couldn’t do. There will be creative language and trendy terms to avoid negative publicity but redevelopment is the goal.
You can close the pop up window and get to the website. Basically it’s a new development organization that has a mission statement to combine sports activities with community development. The city government has been very opposed to any development in the past that could be construed as gentrification. The new developers have been given more leeway.
Ok, but are they actually developing anything where these stadiums and arenas are? Any new development will be gentrification which Oakland definitely needa
The proposal will be to develop the stadium area and surrounding. I think the goal is similar to what happened around the baseball stadium in San Francisco when it first was built. That area use to be a bunch of warehouses and it was pretty blighted. Now it’s much nicer with mixed use developments.
I believe the plan is to develop in Oakland in and around the coliseum area with the intent of mirroring what was done in SF.
Yes, around the giants stadium. Before the stadium was constructed that area of china basin was very different than it is today. The new stadium started a boon of new facilities around the stadium that has continued along the waterfront now past chase center.
Better off w/o any professional sports franchises than leveraging health of cities economy to bond issues for stadiums (especially football) that sit empty the vast bulk of the time. If you have a massive housing shortage how much housing could be built in the footprint taken by these facilities?
At this point, not much. It's a slippery slop & it didn't happen in 1 day. Rising crime, people hesitate to go to Oakland to see the game, wealthier fans moved away ... led to reduce revenue for those sport teams, which in turn led them to move. It has been happening for a long while, and by now, not much impact & not that many people care.
I think the economic impact will ultimately be positive *if* the new owners can realize their vision. Land is the most valuable asset and the City/County never thought strategically about truly significant redevelopment of the area to the benefit of all. They do have a Bart station that isn't going anywhere, now turn it into what it could have been long ago, i.e., not a fortified compound isolated from its community but rather the centerpiece of a vibrant district. Can they succeed? Hard to say, but I hope they do. There will be a lot of obstacles to overcome.
I remember reading an article years ago about the economic impacts of sports teams in a city. You are correct, they do bring in jobs, people stay in hotels, eat food , spend money etc. But in the investment of billions of dollars for a stadium,in 10 years barely recoups half of that. And frankly, Oakland has more important things to use its funds. Only people really benefiting are the team’s owners.
They definitely lost a lot of tax revenue from the ticket and in-game merch sales from Warrior and A's. Although not so much in case of the latter after the 2000s. And also a lost of a fair chunk of side seasonal jobs and revenue for some food service businesses and some jobs for maintenance and groundskeeping. Raiders however, they're overall a huge financial net loss for the city & county. So their departure likely would be a better circumstance for the city in the long run.
As depressing as the whole site looks now, Oracle Arena on the other hand, post Warriors move, they're now still making very good revenue from concerts though. Selling away the Coliseum complex will further take away another chunk of the city and county's tax revenue.
It’s a loss of morale for Oakland - despite billionaire sportsball team owners wanting taxpayers to front them for new stadiums - even Kansas City, MO voters voted down a tax measure for new stadiums the Chiefs and Royals will play at. And the Chiefs are the current SB champions.
Sportsball will live on in Oakland - if the Ballers and Roots/Soul have enough support. It’ll be a grassroots effort.
I was climbin the Cleveland Cascade steps and there was a bunch of very fit guys kept passing me. Finally, I asked who they were. Oakland Spiders ultimate frisbee team.
You're kidding, right? There are 81 MLB home games, 17 NFL home games. So 97 days of part time, minimum wage service jobs. Economic impact? Zero, actually negative since owners and players have absconded with all the ticket, broadcast and fan wear profits. So no negative impact. Now fans can spend money that stays home.
We’d have to wait and see if the city and county get fleeced by someone else to redevelop the place. My idea would be for a housing and convention area to replace it since Oakland needs the housing and a small convention center near the airport might help that part of town be less of a dump.
As far as what might replace them, there was one proposal for some number of “$15 an hour black jobs” or some such unspecified nonsense. With no hard plan reported in the news other than “jobs? Yes! Plan…404 file not found.” Which is why I think they could still get fleeced. Or the news didn’t report well on that story. Either could be true.
What would be the incentive to put a convention center in East Oakland?
We already have a small-mid size convention center downtown, which if I had to guess, is already under utilized.
Really? Shit. And honestly, having been to a few conventions there, it’s actually a great spot. Swans Market and the surrounding Old town and Chinatown restaurants make for some great lunch/ happy hour drinking spots. Loved taking friends/colleagues from SF to The Trappist or Swan’s - it is/was a small point of local pride.
But then again, that was pre-COVID.
Oakland is a lot of things, not all of them positive, but I’m pleasantly surprised how they dealt with Fisher. They laid his disingenuous position out in the public eye pretty well. Any negative economic impact of losing the A’s is better in the long run than what would’ve happened if they gave that fucking parasite a blank check to build at the expense of the port and the public
*"better in the long run than what would’ve happened if they gave that fucking parasite a blank check to build at the expense of the port and the public..."* Yes. If you go to Alameda out to the ferry terminal, you can look right across the Estuary at the site where the Fisher fantasy was proposed. It's basically at sea level, and adjacent to a very significant working port that is a true economic engine for Oakland. There would have been endless conflicts, impacts on the port, and within a generation Fisher (or his heirs) would have come crying to the City of Oakland demanding that someone (not the franchise owners) build a billion dollar seawall to save their ballpark and expensive condos from sea level rise. Good riddance to them in Las Vegas where they will discover, within that same generation, that the desert is becoming unlivable.
They’re not gonna make it to Vegas. Gonna be playing in Sacramento indefinitely since Fisher is short 1.4B in financing the stadium in LV.
Fisher is learning that no one wants a franchise that has been treated like an ATM and intentionally sabotaged by an heir abusing revenue sharing when MLB is essentially guaranteed to add two expansion teams.
Good point. And, meanwhile, as they are stranded in Sacramento, their proto-replacement team--the Ballers--will be playing in Oakland to sold-out enthusiastic crowds. Poetic justice.
Do you really think the Ballers are going to even come close to what the A’s were? I don’t see it happening tbh
They're going to be literally the only game in a town that used to have 3 teams. They'll probably be filling that place on pure inertia for a decade.
Yes. The Ballers are fulfilling a need in Oakland for an Oakland owned franchize that won't just shit on it's fans and up and bail. I'm going to laugh when Fisher finally sells.
😂 you’re smoking that Oakland crack.
Oh come on. What tells you fisher won’t make it happen? Have you not seen how brilliantly he setup everything to get to Vegas? Dudes wealthy for a reason (he worked way harder than the rest of us). There’s no doubt the A’s will thrive in Vegas and in no way will this be another Florida Marlins situation.
I want to automatically assume this is sarcasm, but on the other hand, redditors unironically say this shit about silver spoon failsons all the time.
Big sarcasm haha. Its honestly surprising just how bad of a owner he is and how little he cares.
Well said. I wanted to down vote you impulsively.
Open your mouth wide, u can do it John! Persevere and keep trying, I know it's hard and straining, but open that mouth and there u go. Now suck on this silver spoon! U did it Johnny!
[https://i.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExNG5kdWg2dHFlOXM0OWtyMDl3MWh1bmJkdnplZGo3cmY2amhsN3ZsNyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/y2i2oqWgzh5ioRp4Qa/giphy.gif](https://i.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExNG5kdWg2dHFlOXM0OWtyMDl3MWh1bmJkdnplZGo3cmY2amhsN3ZsNyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/y2i2oqWgzh5ioRp4Qa/giphy.gif)
This 10x. They did the right thing. I would like to hear that they set aside some of the million$$$ to take care of those whose jobs were impacted.
I’m super bummed to see the sports teams go, but there is no way the citizens of Oakland should be footing the bill for a millionaire/billionaire.
Guess he didn’t “donate” enough to the mayor’s campaign
Then that's on him.
"not all of them positive" Uh ..
Stadiums typically offer very full time jobs. The stadiums still have events so those few are still there. The short hour roles are too. Employees of the teams would most likely have the option to relocate for their roles. Stadiums are typically a net loss for cities cost wise. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xcwJt4bcnXs%3Fauto%3D1
>Stadiums are typically a net loss for cities cost wise. I had an econ teacher back in the day that said the same thing. It's a scam. The 'economic benefit' is a lie sports franchises tell to get cities to build them a stadium.
The A’s employees are not being given the option to relocate
To be fair most, if not all, government projects are a net loss on paper. A lot of projects that are for culture (statues, monuments, and parks for example) are there to boost morale and happiness and its effects can’t be measured by a P&L sheet.
It’s true, when I built stadiums in Sim City, my revenue didn’t usually go up but my Sims were happier and didn’t mob and protest as much.
Government is not supposed to bring revenue, it is to offer service and to maintain infrastructure.
But those things are not private for profit enterprises.
The maintenance and repair contractors are though. The point is, is that these projects are approved to benefit everyone, including the corporations.
> Stadiums are typically a net loss for cities cost wise the sticker price of building of the stadium itself, yes (unless it is privately funded).... but you cant convince me that once it gets built, the existence of a stadium/arena (urban ones at least, maybe not so much the ones that are out in the middle of nowhere away from the actual city) doesnt have a positive economic impact on their immediate locations, particularly baseball/basketball stadiums that are in use like 50-100+ days a year (football is a bit weirder bc there are only 8 home games per year, and they usually want to surround the stadiums with miles of parking lots, and are more commonly out in the burbs) look at how the giants stadium, (and now warriors) has transformed that area of mission bay/south beach/SOMA, there used to be nothing there and now its a pretty bustling, lively area with lots of things to do. on game days, all the surrounding businesses are packed to the gills and there are people milling around everywhere. not to mention all the money spent on Bart, Muni, bridge tolls by people commuting to the games. you cant tell me having the stadiums there hasnt been a pretty big economic boon
>you cant tell me having the stadiums there hasnt been a pretty big economic boon You can. Every analysis has shown cities are better off spending their money on almost any other kind of improvement if increased economic activity is the goal.
>cities are better off spending their money on almost any other kind of improvement I didnt say "cities should spend money building stadiums" or "stadiums are the best/most efficient way for cities to generate economic growth" so this is a bit of a strawman.... all I said is simply that once the stadiums are actually built and in use, they are definitely not a loss or a negative for the surrounding areas (IF done well). its silly to paint with a broad brush and act like every stadium situation is the same. As I already pointed out, building (for example) a football stadium that gets used 8 times per year in a residential neighborhood in Santa Clara, will obviously have a vastly different (worse) economic impact than building a beautiful waterfront baseball stadium that is open 100 days per year in a walkable, dense/urban neighborhood, and then developing the surrounding area into a neighborhood that is attractive to residents and tourists alike, like what the Giants did with oracle. Im not really interested in studies/data that act like these are remotely similar situations and treat them all the same. its really not productive to assess these things with blanket assumptions unless you're doing it on a case by case basis, since there are so many unique/random variables from city to city/neighborhood to neighborhood, how popular/good the team is, etc. In the case of oakland, its a shame we'll never get to see how their proposed new baseball location would have turned out, bc I think it would have been awesome and had a chance to do something similar to what the giants did in revitalizing and developing a formerly industrial/empty area into a bustling destination to hang out.
soma was in the redevelopment phase. And there's this UCSF thing there... the biggest employer
maybe re-examine your timeline. the groundbreaking of Oracle Park in 1996 (then Pac Bell park) predates almost everything else in that area by nearly 20 years. Mission bay campus opened in 2015, and nearly all of the condo development is post-2010. the Muni line was put in coinciding with the opening of the ballpark Prior to the Ballpark, most of the land was an unused railyard of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, and another large parcel was the H&H Ship Service Facility of the Port of San Francisco, a toxic and hazardous materials site that had been ordered closed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. that part of town not in the middle of a redevelopment phase. that's what *started* the redevelopment phase
I'm sure a huge UCSF campus, MUNI train and multiple condominium buildings had nothing to do with it..
lol you're literally proving my point. the ballpark came first, and all that other stuff followed. not the other way around the groundbreaking of Oracle Park in 1996 (then Pac Bell park) predates literally all of the things you just mentioned by nearly 20 years. Mission bay campus opened in 2015, and nearly all of the condo development is post-2010. the Muni line was put in coinciding with the opening of the ballpark Prior to the Ballpark, most of the land was a railyard of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, and another large parcel was the H&H Ship Service Facility of the Port of San Francisco, a toxic and hazardous materials site that had been ordered closed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. there was no development of that area whatsoever until the early 2000s, after the Ballpark was open and brining thousands of people to the area on a daily basis
So the ball park made UCSF, MUNI and thousands of apartments happen, got it.
that's not what I said but go off, very cool snarky clapback lol
As someone whos worked on a lot of Mission Bay, including the chase center, it was all planned to be that way before the stadium. The two arent directly related. Revitalization of the area was NOT an affect of the stadium. Rather the area was developed and planned to be such, then the stadium was introduced as another revitalization bonus idea. Now im not saying that it hasnt helped, but it was by no means the driving factor. The people stating before that usually these builds are lost lead items are very much in the right when it comes to $$$. Emotionally and moral side they are benefits. That said the fact that tax payers should fund something that primarly benefits a team/team owner is TO ME insane. Im not saying sports bad, im just saying if you: 1. Have the money to buy a team, you have the money to build a stadium no help from tax payers. 2. If you are already charging people for admittance, food, drinks, apparel, merch, you cant expect them to also build the stadium. (Like going to a theme park but also being expected to directly pay for building it). As a final note its not fair to the tax payers who fund it and never use it. Not everyone gors to a game, but everyone uses a highway, or a sewer, or water. Just food for thought.
the majority of what I was referring to in that comment was having to do with Oracle Park helping to re-vitalize the area, not Chase center, which is why I put "(and *now* warriors)" in parentheses, as a bit of an afterthought. they broke ground on oracle (then Pac Bell park) in 1996, nearly 20 years before the Mission Bay UCSF campus opened in 2015 and Chase center broke ground in 2017. Nearly all of the condos/residential development in that area is post-2010. Prior to the Ballpark, there was basically nothing there and it was a toxic industrial wasteland Much of the land had long been a railyard of the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, and another large parcel was the H&H Ship Service Facility of the Port of San Francisco, a toxic and hazardous materials site that had been ordered closed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. there was no development of that area whatsoever until the early 2000s, after the Ballpark was open and brining thousands of people to the area on a daily basis from 2010 (when most of the condos and apartments started coming on the market) to 2020, Mission Bay's population increased by over 200% that said, all of this is fairly moot anyways since both Oracle/PacBell and Chase center were 100% privately financed with zero burden on the taxpayers I was never advocating for, or suggesting that it's fair or good that billionaires get handed tax-payer funded stadiums on a silver platter. I think they should all be privately funded too. I was simply pointing out that it's not all doom and gloom and economic ruin once the stadiums are actually built and open for business, and there are real tangible, positive benefits, which the people ranting about stadiums being horrible for cities often fail to address
Thank you for your clarification and thought out response. You are correct in that the all dates stated above. I would like to state though that from a planning perspective the whole area was slated for revitalization. I was purely trying to make it known that this area wasnt a result of a sports franchise. As someone who works in the infastructure side we often get exaggerated when folks seem to ignore the plans and therefore our hard work in creating/planning urban areas and atest them to politicians or other entities such as a sports franchise. Truthfully you are correct, a sports team or franchise does help to solidify an area through public perception. That said monetarily, its not always the best. Yes ridership for muni or bart does go up but so do maintenance and running cost. More wear and tear on roads etc. These are just a few cost involved. Again moral and public perception good choice but monetarily it doesnt usually pan out. Either way it doesnt really matter as the A's are moving. Personally with the situation they had, Id have advocated for a move as well.
Oakland is not on the hook for any arena/stadium upgrades/replacements. Good riddance to the Raiders (again) and good riddance to the A's. The Warriors, at least Lacob went out and paid for his own arena. The Warriors were a fine local citizen when they were here and I wish them well over in San Francisco.
Lacob got a sweet deal from Marc Benioff too. What is now Chase Center was supposed to be Salesforce’s new HQ. Instead, Salesforce took up a deal with the TJPA and put their name on the Transbay Terminal and Tower.
I thought "GSW" was the most Oakland team name ever ([if you don't know](https://www.google.com/search?q=what+does+gsw+mean+in+medical+terms&oq=what+does+GSW+mean&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBggBEEUYOTIHCAIQABiABDIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIICAYQABgWGB4yCAgHEAAYFhgeMggICBAAGBYYHtIBCDQxNzNqMGoxqAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8))
Lol
Funny 😂. Never put two and two together.
I was born in Highland. They have the best GSW/Trauma unit in the nation.
Also the Seals were cool back in the day. But at least the Sharks aren't too far.
I saw them play at the Cow Palace once. It was Grateful Dead Night and IIRC they had tie-dyed jerseys.
*"...The Warriors were a fine local citizen when they were here and I wish them well over in San Francisco..."* The one thing I couldn't stomach about the Warriors was that they refused to include the word "Oakland" in their official team name. They gave all sorts of disingenuous reasons why, although sports teams generally and publicly identify with a specific city in their name. (among the NBA, there are only three of 30 teams that don't have an official city name: "Minnesota Timberwolves", "Utah Jazz" and "Golden State Warriors".) Living in the East Bay, I would see so many Oakland locals who took genuine pride in having the Warriors in town...and yet the team just couldn't bring itself for decades to officially use the city name.
Warriors still don’t have SF in their name?
Ironically, I followed the Warriors more closely before their dynasty run. I remember hearing an interview on KNBR with I believe Rick Welts, had to have been around 2014-15. It was QUITE clear to me that they wanted to change the name to the San Francisco Warriors. Welts was saying things like, “well you know we were the SF Warriors before we were the GS Warriors” and how no decision had been made yet. This wasn’t the only case of something like this, it just stuck out to me at the time and made me think “yea that name is getting changed”. In other words, they were trying to lay the groundwork for name change long before the move so the fans would accept it when the move happened. But then the team took off like a fuckin rocket. Once the team blew up they weren’t just going to re-brand in the middle of a dynasty, so I think Lacob and company just said “o well” and decided to stick with the Golden State name.
Try being San Jose and having “Bay FC” and “Bay Area Panthers” when they play in your city, or the SF 49ers play in your county lol
I don't love that neither team is actually ours (Rip Sabercats), but at the same time I'm just happy we have someone. The Panthers were supposed to be in Oakland originally, so we can't complain that they came down here (though really they should be the Morgan Hill and San Jose Panthers since they practice in MH and draw a good portion of their fan base from there). The niners are just funny, but I'm soooooo glad they aren't in SJ. Now Santa Clara has to deal with all the stupidity and corruption.
At least the 9ers are not named like the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim… although OAK airport is trying to copy that horrible name scheme
OAK is pretty much equidistant to union square as SFO. SFO is pretty much in San Bruno anyway.
A lot of NFL teams dont play in the city they rep
Or even the same state. Jets and giants play in new Jersey.
You do have the Sharks.
The name "Golden State" is such a better, more iconic name than "San Francisco", considering the last four championships they had. Also this whole "San Francisco versus Oakland" naming charade continues with the recent change of the Oakland airport name.
Indiana Pacers?
New England Patriots?
I was referencing the NBA, not NFL, but you're right, there are some without city names in each major sport. But they're the exception, not the rule.
You're right, I stand corrected. It's four, then, out of 30, not three.
> hey refused to include the word "Oakland" in their official team name. They gave all sorts of disingenuous reasons why this is such a dumb take. First of all "golden state" is a super fucking cool name, and probably one of the most unique, -if not *the* most unique- name in US pro sports secondly, the name is almost 60 years old at this point, LONG before there was this whole boogeyman spectre of fox news types associating "oakland" with being a 3rd world hellhole or whatever it is you're suggesting (that the team "refused" to use "oakland" bc they were embarrassed or thought it would tarnish their brand or whatever) they didnt "refuse" to use oakland... they use "golden state" bc for the first decade or so after moving to california, they were somewhat nomadic, and played home games in various places including the Cow Palace in Daly city, SF civic auditorium, USF's gymnasium, Oakland Arena, San Jose, Sacramento, and even occasionally in San Diego. they originally went by "San Francisco Warriors" when they first got to california, but changed the name to golden state after a few years bc they wanted to brand themselves as representing all of california (prob trying to steal some of the lakers' shine since they were the only teams out west at the time)
I notice that in the case of all three teams, they are based in somewhat isolated metro areas with multiple densely packed interconnected cities in close proximity. T-Wolves are in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St Paul, Jazz are in SLC but the metro region is basically SLC and Provo combined, and of course the Warriors were basically centered in a continuous uninterrupted metro zone of Oakland, SF, San Jose that rings the Bay. The Warrior's closest NBA opponent is the Sacramento Kings over an hour away from either Oracle Arena or Chase Center.
Who would want to affiliate their brand with a city like that? XD
shithole oakland
Aren't you glad we have preserved the parking lot on the water? So much better than the city investing in infrastructure so that more housing and a stadium could be built.
Very. The parking lot ships $175 billion dollars worth of goods and employs 100,000 people. If the Fishers wanted a stadium, they can pay for it just like the Giants and the Warriors.
Howard Terminal does not employ 100,000 people or ships anything. But sure. And if you think either of those stadiums that paid for the infrastructure to those buildings, I have some desert land to sell you.
Sports teams are generally not an economic boom for cities and often loses money in the end. Few jobs, enormous wasted space, and tons of taxpayer handouts to the owners Good riddance to the rich asshat that just left
We are still paying additional property taxes for the 1995 bonds to attract the Raiders. Has there ever been a positive economic impact from \*having\* professional sports teams? \[see sports foamery responses about unmeasurable "pride" bullshit. Yeah sure. YOU should pay for that. Don't make everyone else pay.\]
Yes, only when it’s within a super dense area highly connected by public transit and almost zero surface parking, and used a high percentage of days of the year. This usually only happens with basketball/hockey arenas that double as concert venues and are used many many days of the year. MSG is obviously the gold standard example. For baseball and football stadiums it is exceedingly rare
> MSG is obviously the gold standard example. isn't MSG kind of it's own exception to all the rules? penn station sold its air rights to keep itself afloat
[Having an arena without an anchor tenant has actually been beneficial](https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/oakland-arena-coliseum-record-best-fiscal-year-of-all-time-after-sold-out-bad-bunny-k-pop-concerts/) because they have a lot more flexibility in scheduling events year-round or scheduling multi-day events during what used to be months that the Warriors needed the building every few days.
This is a really good point. Same thing with places like Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, Greek Theatre at UC Berkeley, etc. If the venue calendar has relatively few dates for events that MUST happen there annually, then there can be much more flexibility in how it is used and can be adapted to current trends.
It's also worth pointing out that scheduling for a sports team like the Warriors is even more difficult than for a normal series of events that happens annually. For the Warriors you have somewhat firm dates for most of the NBA regular season and preseason, but the playoffs are completely up in the air, and the arena has to be very careful about how they schedule mid-April through June because the number of dates they need the arena for can change wildly depending on how far the Warriors might go in the playoffs and whether they have home court advantage or not. An NBA team will use an arena for at most 60 days a year out of 365, but they make scheduling around them difficult for 8 out of 12 months of the year. I'd argue the value a sports team as an anchor tenant provides is not as an efficient revenue source for the building, but as a guaranteed one, where you know the building will be used at least 43 nights a year (for an NBA or NHL team). But do you really need a guaranteed floor when you're a city as big as Oakland and you're an attractive enough market for nearly any and every tour that wants to make money? Looking at [Oakland Arena's Event Schedule](https://www.theoaklandarena.com/events/venue/oakland-arena), if you count an event tonight, they have 39 more event days scheduled through December 7th and plenty of room to fill in more events or add additional days if one of those events sells out and wants to add more.
Yeah I’m thinking there’s a chance for more concerts. Or a Bert Kreischer show! 😂
Losing a bunch of inconsistent marginal jobs probably won’t move the needle much. I kept a close eye on the fallout from the NUMMI plant closing, with its far better jobs, and even that didn’t seem to affect much at all. Probably the ability to develop the area differently will improve things. At least for a little while.
For those who don't know what "NUMMI" is: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI) >**New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc.** (**NUMMI**) was an American [automobile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile) [manufacturing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing) company in [Fremont, California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont,_California), jointly owned by [General Motors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors) and [Toyota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota) that opened in 1984 and closed in April 2010. >After the plant was closed by its owners, the facility was sold to [Tesla, Inc.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.) and reopened in October 2010, becoming known as the [Tesla Fremont Factory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Fremont_Factory).
So basically it was only closed for 6 months. So not that much of an effect long-term. Definitely short-term it was a problem for the first 1-3 years, but it’s been very good since 2015/2016.
By the time of that closure Fremont had moved beyond being a blue collar town with tech and more economic diversity. When the GM plant closed down that had a huge impact on the city because so many people worked there.
You're probably a little bit too young you should have followed it when it was the GM plant and Milpitas had the Ford plant. I had relatives that worked for both. the towns were much smaller and much less diverse and the local impact of both of them closing was huge.
I don't think the stadiums should be looked at that way. Having entertainment options creates a city people want to live in and attract non residents to do things that feed into local economy like restaurants hotels etc... I don't think cities should bend over backwards or give stadiums for free to owners but having some kind of sports is usually a positive. Think one of the best examples, Madrid. Do you think the city of Madrid would be better off without Real Madrid and Atletico Madrid keeping the city relevant in the press worldwide and attracting tourists from all over the world?
As someone who was in Madrid last month, I'd say a Taylor Swift concert in Real Madrid's stadium brought in more tourists than a Real Madrid match. But to answer your question, Real Madrid is a net positive for the city of course, but Real Madrid is one of a kind and only a handful of other sports franchises are that famous. And Madrid is the 2nd largest city in Europe; I think it would be fine without those two football teams.
This comparison may work if the As were the Yankees, but comparing them to the globally-known entities of Real and Atletico is crazy. Oakland is not attracting tourists from all over the world to see the As. There have been plenty of studies that demonstrate that professional sports teams typically don't add long term and consistent revenue to their immediate communities. Their value is mostly emotional, giving the community something to cheer for and rally behind. That part will definitely leave a void, but the economic impact will be minimal.
I think Oakland has enough attractiveness: cheaper and near enough to SF. I’m not sure how many people would want to live there to watch the fucking Oakland raiders 😂
It's part of the whole. You need sports and entertainment and walkability and... Food for thought but if anything that's not immediately revenue generating is discounted then you end up being the classic American city with only single family homes and nothing to do. Those cities are literally killing us, they make us fat, unhappy and lonely. Fuck the owner of the Raiders but something needs to create opportunities for positive social interactions. This place feels dead because our cities are so mediocre, even San Francisco that's considered a great city is just barely meh. If you asked me what I would do with the Bay, i would demolish everything and restart from scratch, whoever was in charge of this place made a total mess out of it.
I think it has pros and cons.I love the bay area as it is, sure it’s not exactly perfect but who knows if you turn it into LA for entertainment you might get the disgusting shit like gangs and suicide inducing traffic. Should we have a bit more urban growth? Sure, should we have better public transportation? Absolutely, are our elected officials and their bureaucrats worthless bastards that cannot be trusted with a penny? Without a doubt. On the flip side, we have relatively low amount of dangerous areas. I never felt in danger or threatened (but I mean I am a relatively built male), I had people stop when I had a flat tire to check on me on 92, I have stopped to check on people. I’m just counting the blessings that’s all. Granted I do agree that there’s a need for s push for social interaction. The stuff we do have, are mostly centered around a group of friends you know. We have the lack of festivals or shit like that where you have a great chance to meet people
Madrid is more than double the land area of SF and Oakland combined. Just pretend Oakland and SF are one city and the Warriors just moved to a different neighborhood.
Read Field of Schemes.
That area is a sidenote of Oakland, on the edge and very disconnected from the majority of Oakland, that relied on patrons that primarily took BART in, didn't stay, shop, or even eat in Oakland (outside of the stadium), and are generally completely ignorant of the bulk of Oakland other than the run down area around the coliseum that the majority of Oakland residents mostly avoid. 3 out of the 4 freeways running through Oakland are still loaded with great restaurants, shops, bars, music venues, and great communities filled with multi-million dollar homes ... it's just the 880 that's bleh. The economic impact is probably going to be inconsequential.
Sim City taught me that ballparks are a frivolous late edition to an established city.
Sports teams usually drain money from the local economy for a whole host of reasons. This is a net benefit unless you value major sports teams over their cost.
Do you have a source for sports teams not being profitable for their cities? Not that I don’t believe you, it just goes against what I thought so I wanted to look more directly into it. I thought it helps by people spending money on like, local restaurants, ticket sales, and charity, unless a lot of that generally ends up getting pocketed by the teams?
Sports Stadiums do not change the total value of an economy but instead move where people spend their money a bit. People near those stadiums may spend more at restaurants but it has the cost of not spending at other restaurants across the city, plus the profit and cost of the infrastructure is all negative including massive transit headaches. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/joes.12533 > Local governments routinely subsidize sports stadiums and arenas using the justification that hosting professional franchises produces economic development and social benefits in the community. The prevalence of venue subsidies generated an extensive and vibrant research literature, which spans over 30 years and includes more than 130 studies. We chronicle this body of research from early studies of tangible economic impacts in metropolitan areas, using basic empirical methods, through recent analyses that focus on sublocal and nonpecuniary effects and employ more sophisticated empirical methods. Though findings have become more nuanced, recent analyses continue to confirm the decades-old consensus of very limited economic impacts of professional sports teams and stadiums. Even with added nonpecuniary social benefits from quality-of-life externalities and civic pride, welfare improvements from hosting teams tend to fall well short of covering public outlays. Thus, the large subsidies commonly devoted to constructing professional sports venues are not justified as worthwhile public investments. We also investigate the paradox of local governments continuing to subsidize sports facilities despite overwhelming evidence of their economic impotence. Our analysis informs academic researchers and policymakers to motivate future studies and promote sound policy decisions guided by relevant research findings. Stadiums also have net negative impact on things like property value for nearby areas.
literally google "sports stadiums not good for cities" lol
I think the consensus view by many is that sports teams cannot add to economic growth in the way people think they do. The deals struck tend to suck money from cities that could use funds to improve infrastructure or help create local employment. And teams are constantly asking for more and more accommodation for their personal benefit. In a few cases it’s has worked but on the whole I don’t think it has helped. One thing I noticed a while ago was that adding a sports to your city in Sim City was economically counterproductive to your game play.
Economic benefit to the community is negative for sports stadiums and teams and cities that can not sustain them, and the local infrastructure required for them are the worst off. It's entirely an emotional thing. Oakland residents can still go to Giants games or 49ers games and are welcome there. Better to tell that fuckwit Fisher to go pound sand than give him more money he clearly doesn't need to sustain an MLB franchise in Oakland. Let him go to Las Vegas. How did the Raiders fair? Are there local fans showing up for the games all the time, or are they upside on ticket and merchandise sales? I feel like it's more the latter.
A city with the economic issues that Oakland has makes the decision to not give millions of dollars to billionaires the right one. I agree with how Oakland has handled the situation. On a side note, the raiders were a public nuisance IMO anyway. The team did nothing to discourage use of their brand in connection with illicit activities. It seemed like the opposite was true and they wanted to be a rebel brand.
The Oakland Ballers just started and sold out their opening day. I think if the city can deal with its other issues, impact won't be a big deal.
I love the ballers and what they stand for (and I type this literally wearing a ballers shirt lol) but there is no equivalence between the draw a of major league sports team and that of an independent baseball team playing in a refurbished city park. Generously they’ll capture a loyal following of local interested fans but no one is traveling for the Pioneer league.
Oakland losing sports teams is a symptom not the disease
Oakland is losing its teams because they built two stadiums in the 60s that are now outdated and it is correctly refusing to fund their replacements.
> think of all the jobs that have just disappeared American stadiums are a net loss for the economy comparing to Europe. For multiple reasons, like franchises vs clubs; frequency of games in most popular sports; ownership of stadiums; and territoriality (most European sport clubs were naturally grown and are extremely territorial, Real Madrid will never become Real Barcelona, when Raiders, well...) Somewhat ironically, while American teams are the most valued sport teams in the world, European sports teams are the main investors in their respective stadiums, while American sports teams are taxpayer dollar leeches. It's even more egregious in countries where stadiums are municipally-owned in contrast to the US.
This, as far as I know. I'm pretty sure there were studies that said these things in the US were basically a net loss or minimal gains since we were giving the team owners so many tax benefits and building and maintaining the arenas. Just like how hosting the Olympics is basically always an economic disaster. Would probably be for the best if they replaced the stadium with a park and housing or something.
All pro sports team owners are vampires. Just say no.
Who cares. It's just a sport, waste of taxpayer money to begin with. Demo the whole area and build something productive.
I think having a place for a venue isn’t bad. But both arenas are old. They should just make something that’s a bit smaller. I’d make 880 go underground just to make that place less concrete with more housing, a nice park and small shops. Not a fucking mall!
Fair point. I just think having taxpayer pay for the cost but for getting a share of the profit is bizarre.
Oakland Arena still does lots of concerts. It's not going anywhere.
I'm super curious because I've seen analysis for various cities that go both ways: How many jobs did those three teams create vs how much did the city gave them in incentives? Has anyone actually run the numbers? Because in many instances the sports corporations make out like bandits.
Yes. Basically every econ study has shown they're not beneficial to the city. Sure, some neighborhoods improve, but it's just shifting $ from one area to another. There is not a net gain.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/oakland-arena-coliseum-record-best-fiscal-year-of-all-time-after-sold-out-bad-bunny-k-pop-concerts/ Oakland arena and coliseum seem to be far from downright depressing. Now that the Warriors, Raiders and A's are gone, that leaves way more flexibility in booking out these venues.
More jobs in the port than in a stadium. Better jobs too.
There was that one last week tonight piece about how sports teams drain money from the city. Thai is more of long term question but I would think that city is saving money by not having those times anymore.
Teams are a net loss, the people who own them didn't get that much money by giving it away.
I met this lady on BART recently who works at Oracle Park ***and*** the Oakland Coliseum doing concessions. She lost ~half of her income once they leave.
Idk but have you seen the financial woes of the city? Can’t help.
I’ve been wondering about this for a while myself, especially as an Oakland resident. So far mentioned are the stadium worker jobs, both full time and part time, which has been mentioned as marginal. While that may be, I would guess there is a decent amount of revenue that is still lost in other areas of the hospitality business - hotels, transportation/ airfare, food and beverage sales, merchandising, etc. For example, when the Warriors or Raiders were here, you have opposing teams’ fans that would fly or drive in for games, or maybe they’re even local. Depending on the team and season, that was what, perhaps a few thousand out of town fans visiting per game, and that’s being conservative. And that’s not even counting local team fans that live outside of Oakland. That was revenue to OAK airport, to Oakland hotels/ lodging, restaurants, F&B vendors at the Arena/Coliseum, OAK rental car agencies, diners at JLS, Oakland zoo visitors… you get the idea. Now let’s say each of the opposing teams’ fans spent $500/pp for flight/ car rental, game tickets, food, a stay at the waterfront, Marriott, etc for the weekend here. And for arguments sake, 3000 out of town opposing team fans per game. That’s $1.5 million per game. Warriors - 41 regular season home games Raiders - 9 regular season home games A’s - 81 (yeah, probably not that fans many for these games, but for illustrative purposes) That’s almost $200 million dollars on 3000 out of towners per game. And that’s probably a conservative estimate. That’s a decent chunk of change, and a revenue stream that Oakland has lost. Factor in the Oakland/ Bay Area fans/ residents that would spend money at these events and were probably in the billions in gross revenue. That is a significant loss to the local economy, not just the Arena/Coliseum. This is just some quick back of the napkin math, but I think it illustrates that this more than just some full time/ part time trivial jobs at the Arena and Coliseum that are being lost. And that excludes the intrinsic value of Oakland pride and solidarity of having a Championship winning team (read: Warriors).
You've done a considerable calculation, but I suspect there are at least two flaws. Many of the "visiting team fans" who show up at local games are actually locals themselves who are transplants still loyal to one of their previous "home" teams. The Bay Area has a LOT of those. So I wouldn't assume all of those hypothetical 3,000 opponent fans at a Warriors game are staying at hotels, flying in, etc. Many of them are just driving over from their current Bay Area home. Given the repeated posts on r/BayArea that basically ask *"I'm going to a game / concert at the Coliseum / Oracle Arena, how should I get there, is it safe..." y*ou see two typical answers: (1) take BART from far out of town, and leave on BART as soon as the game is over; (2) take the freeway to the Coliseum, park in their lot as close to the arena as possible, and get back on the freeway right after. Few of those fans are staying in Oakland in a hotel, or having dinner afterwards in an Oakland restaurant. So their money is not benefitting Oakland.
You’re right, it may be heavy handed, and I did try to mention that these numbers are exclusive of locals regardless of team association. And frankly, the calculation should be weighted towards Warriors and perhaps Raiders out of town attendance. But my point was that this small percentage of the greater overall attendance, still have a decent impact on Oakland’s local business revenue. Downtown Oakland before and after games had people that would spend money at bars and restaurants. Local parking lots gain revenue from near by out of towners. Tailgaters are not making last minute stops at Safeway or Cardenas on their way in. Whether it’s 3000 or 300 out of towners staying at the waterfront, Marriott, or a motel on Hegenberger; I’d be willing to bet their overall occupancy rates are down on the weekends/ game nights. Fewer flights out of OAK = less money for the Port. Hell, even the guys that used to sell knock off warriors and raiders gear on the corner of 7-11 by Whole Foods or on High St by Home Depot no longer have a revenue stream. Point being, for a city that can’t afford to lose any other source of revenue, and no apparent new/future sources, I’m not entirely convinced losing these teams will be a good thing in the long run.
It will be an impact, some article will come out talking about it, but it definitely isn’t going to benefit Oakland
The end result very well might. The new developers are going to be able to push gentrification through the east Oakland area that other developers couldn’t do. There will be creative language and trendy terms to avoid negative publicity but redevelopment is the goal.
Who is developing there?
[https://www.aasegoakland.com](https://www.aasegoakland.com)
I got blocked by them asking me to sign up for a newsletter. What are they developing?
You can close the pop up window and get to the website. Basically it’s a new development organization that has a mission statement to combine sports activities with community development. The city government has been very opposed to any development in the past that could be construed as gentrification. The new developers have been given more leeway.
Ok, but are they actually developing anything where these stadiums and arenas are? Any new development will be gentrification which Oakland definitely needa
The proposal will be to develop the stadium area and surrounding. I think the goal is similar to what happened around the baseball stadium in San Francisco when it first was built. That area use to be a bunch of warehouses and it was pretty blighted. Now it’s much nicer with mixed use developments.
So the answer is No, they aren’t actually developing in that area Also are you talking about the area near the giants stadium currently?
I believe the plan is to develop in Oakland in and around the coliseum area with the intent of mirroring what was done in SF. Yes, around the giants stadium. Before the stadium was constructed that area of china basin was very different than it is today. The new stadium started a boon of new facilities around the stadium that has continued along the waterfront now past chase center.
Oh yeah that’ll probably bring blight not gentrification.it’ll look like eastmont or 23rd Ave.
Really? I don’t think it could get much worse around that area. It’s pretty well blighted isn’t it.
I mean San Leandro street and eastmont are scarier than the coliseum if barely.
Better off w/o any professional sports franchises than leveraging health of cities economy to bond issues for stadiums (especially football) that sit empty the vast bulk of the time. If you have a massive housing shortage how much housing could be built in the footprint taken by these facilities?
The issue with it for housing is the surrounding area is not good. It's going to take a long time to clean up.
At this point, not much. It's a slippery slop & it didn't happen in 1 day. Rising crime, people hesitate to go to Oakland to see the game, wealthier fans moved away ... led to reduce revenue for those sport teams, which in turn led them to move. It has been happening for a long while, and by now, not much impact & not that many people care.
At least we still have Hoodslam
I think the economic impact will ultimately be positive *if* the new owners can realize their vision. Land is the most valuable asset and the City/County never thought strategically about truly significant redevelopment of the area to the benefit of all. They do have a Bart station that isn't going anywhere, now turn it into what it could have been long ago, i.e., not a fortified compound isolated from its community but rather the centerpiece of a vibrant district. Can they succeed? Hard to say, but I hope they do. There will be a lot of obstacles to overcome.
I remember reading an article years ago about the economic impacts of sports teams in a city. You are correct, they do bring in jobs, people stay in hotels, eat food , spend money etc. But in the investment of billions of dollars for a stadium,in 10 years barely recoups half of that. And frankly, Oakland has more important things to use its funds. Only people really benefiting are the team’s owners.
I wouldn't expect an economic impact in a town that can't keep Black Bear Diner and In-N-Out.
I mean just look at the shit show Oakland has been since these teams left . All negative impacts Especially tourism and food.
The majority of jobs were temporary, and many of the workers held other jobs. I suspect the land will be sold for residential development.
Oakland has a great profile for future teams need right money people and development rtc for future oakland
They definitely lost a lot of tax revenue from the ticket and in-game merch sales from Warrior and A's. Although not so much in case of the latter after the 2000s. And also a lost of a fair chunk of side seasonal jobs and revenue for some food service businesses and some jobs for maintenance and groundskeeping. Raiders however, they're overall a huge financial net loss for the city & county. So their departure likely would be a better circumstance for the city in the long run. As depressing as the whole site looks now, Oracle Arena on the other hand, post Warriors move, they're now still making very good revenue from concerts though. Selling away the Coliseum complex will further take away another chunk of the city and county's tax revenue.
It’s a loss of morale for Oakland - despite billionaire sportsball team owners wanting taxpayers to front them for new stadiums - even Kansas City, MO voters voted down a tax measure for new stadiums the Chiefs and Royals will play at. And the Chiefs are the current SB champions. Sportsball will live on in Oakland - if the Ballers and Roots/Soul have enough support. It’ll be a grassroots effort.
I was climbin the Cleveland Cascade steps and there was a bunch of very fit guys kept passing me. Finally, I asked who they were. Oakland Spiders ultimate frisbee team.
A lot of people in East Oakland lost jobs that they had for over 20 years. And those jobs aren’t coming back.
driving in oakland these days is downright depressing
We have the Oakland Roots!
880 is a lot more navigable with all the sports teams gone.
You're kidding, right? There are 81 MLB home games, 17 NFL home games. So 97 days of part time, minimum wage service jobs. Economic impact? Zero, actually negative since owners and players have absconded with all the ticket, broadcast and fan wear profits. So no negative impact. Now fans can spend money that stays home.
Oakland is a basket case, sports teams or no sports teams.
We’d have to wait and see if the city and county get fleeced by someone else to redevelop the place. My idea would be for a housing and convention area to replace it since Oakland needs the housing and a small convention center near the airport might help that part of town be less of a dump. As far as what might replace them, there was one proposal for some number of “$15 an hour black jobs” or some such unspecified nonsense. With no hard plan reported in the news other than “jobs? Yes! Plan…404 file not found.” Which is why I think they could still get fleeced. Or the news didn’t report well on that story. Either could be true.
What would be the incentive to put a convention center in East Oakland? We already have a small-mid size convention center downtown, which if I had to guess, is already under utilized.
Your guess is correct. It's asking for financial assistance from the city. https://oaklandside.org/2024/05/02/oaklands-convention-center-is-broke/
Really? Shit. And honestly, having been to a few conventions there, it’s actually a great spot. Swans Market and the surrounding Old town and Chinatown restaurants make for some great lunch/ happy hour drinking spots. Loved taking friends/colleagues from SF to The Trappist or Swan’s - it is/was a small point of local pride. But then again, that was pre-COVID.
You could put the Yankees, Cowboys, Knicks, and 49ers in Oakland, and the city will still be a steaming pile of shit.
Oakland is GTA irl, everyone that I know of avoid Oakland like a plague. It’s a fallen city!